I just got back from the movie and I liked it a lot. I do have a couple of problems with it though.

***Spoilers***

The premise just didn't make any sense. I'll buy that they had time travel as a suspension of disbelief but if they have time travel at least use it intelligently.

First, why would you send the guy back alive to be killed by the Looper. They had no problem killing people in the future(they killed Joe's wife) so why didn't they just kill them and then throw them in the time machine. Then the Loopers are just disposal men. No problem with any of the guys they sent back running away.

Second, why the heck would they send a guy to his own Looper. Send him to another Looper. They shouldn't have any problem killing them.

Third, why send them back 30 years to be killed. Just send them back a million years and let them die way back in time. It's not like they can procreate a million years ago. Or see my first problem just send them back dead a million years. That would take care of the body.

Fourth, why would you let a guy know when he was going to die. I think I would spend a long time preparing to kick some arse if I knew they were coming for me in thirty years. Even if they got me, I think I could take a few with me.

I enjoyed the movie, but was a little disappointed. With all the love it has been getting I think I set my expectations too high. There are a number of issues I have with the film, but it is a fun watch.

re: Looper = Movie of the year(Posted by Ross on 10/1/12 at 12:37 am to NavyLSUAlum)

quote:***Spoilers***

The premise just didn't make any sense. I'll buy that they had time travel as a suspension of disbelief but if they have time travel at least use it intelligently.

First, why would you send the guy back alive to be killed by the Looper. They had no problem killing people in the future(they killed Joe's wife) so why didn't they just kill them and then throw them in the time machine. Then the Loopers are just disposal men. No problem with any of the guys they sent back running away.

Second, why the heck would they send a guy to his own Looper. Send him to another Looper. They shouldn't have any problem killing them.

Third, why send them back 30 years to be killed. Just send them back a million years and let them die way back in time. It's not like they can procreate a million years ago. Or see my first problem just send them back dead a million years. That would take care of the body.

Fourth, why would you let a guy know when he was going to die. I think I would spend a long time preparing to kick some arse if I knew they were coming for me in thirty years. Even if they got me, I think I could take a few with me.

I was also quite disappointed that they kept showing Bruce Willis' finger on the trigger about to shoot and then flash to JGL and so on...Why didn't JGL just shoot his hand off? That would have made it impossible for BW to get a shot off then and maybe Sarah could have got him separated from the gun before BW was able to overcome the shock and grab it with his left hand. It just seemed weird for him to immediately shoot himself in the chest instead of blowing a hand off.

But yeah, I had a ton of questions throughout this movie, but it was still pretty good.

Also, if the Rainmaker becomes good...does Bruce Willis ever go back in time to try to kill him? Does this mean that JGL never has to attempt to kill BW and thus never kills himself?

quote:Also, if the Rainmaker becomes good...does Bruce Willis ever go back in time to try to kill him? Does this mean that JGL never has to attempt to kill BW and thus never kills himself?

This my friend and I's gripe with this movie. So now that JGL has killed himself, the entire premise of this movie is for naught. Essentially, nothing in this movie that we saw with Bruce Willis could have ever happened, and we finish the movie exactly where we started.

quote:First, why would you send the guy back alive to be killed by the Looper. They had no problem killing people in the future(they killed Joe's wife) so why didn't they just kill them and then throw them in the time machine. Then the Loopers are just disposal men. No problem with any of the guys they sent back running away.

Second, why the heck would they send a guy to his own Looper. Send him to another Looper. They shouldn't have any problem killing them.

**SPOILERS**

I'll tackle this...remember, they send you back to yourself hooded and everyone wears the same garments when they appear in front of a Looper. You only know it's you when you get your payment and it's in gold.

So, what I'm seeing is that Joe actually new his loop was going to be closed when they killed his wife and took him away. So that's why he obviously fought back and went to himself not hooded. (Side note, when they showed the actual punch by Willis on JGL the entire theater laughed). Also remember that The Rainmaker is why Joe needs to go back in time. He wants to end The Rainmaker before he gets a chance to begin his reign.

Because it fails on a drama level and the action is cheesy as hell. It's a mindless melodrama with some occasionally cool visuals. It's technically grand but the story is bankrupt. The dialogue was painful and low-brow for such an expensive, sweeping film.

quote:frick you. My opinion is considered trolling because you don't realize how terrible Gladiator and Braveheart were? Grow up,

No, your opinion is trolling because in a thread that is loosely about action movies, you, without basis for your opinion or prompting, declared that Braveheart and Gladiator are terrible and/or awful. Given that these movies won Oscars for best picture, you need to do more than state a blanket opinion such as "awful" to be taken seriously.

As a result, the logical conclusion is that you are trolling like the bad troll you are. Now you claim to be offended for being caught in your shenanigans. Go frick yourself.

I didn't bring up the names of those movies in an attempt to defend Looper and/or the genre. People did before me. Sorry pal. I only responded (what people do on forums).

quote:Given that these movies won Oscars for best picture, you need to do more than state a blanket opinion such as "awful" to be taken seriously.

1. I did. 2. Whether or not a movie won an Oscar means nothing. Many great movies won't win one, many shitty movies will. See Gladiator and Braveheart.

Clearly, as noted from your trust of the Oscar judges, you are trolling like the bad troll you are. Now you claim to be correcting me but have been caught in your shenanigans. Go frick yourself, troll.

quote:I'll tackle this...remember, they send you back to yourself hooded and everyone wears the same garments when they appear in front of a Looper. You only know it's you when you get your payment and it's in gold.

Well that didn't work because at least one guy besides Joe we know of didn't kill himself. So why would they take that chance? They wouldn't, it's all about the money for Thugs not honor.